Hooker, Brad, ' Rule Consequentialism', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N.

Brink, David, ' Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, ' Consequentialism', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N.

Driver, Julia, ' The History of Utilitarianism', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N.

The articles are carefully done and meticulously reviewed and are updated as needed.

Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy This is the single best online resource in philosophy. Thus the rules of thumb are a conveniece but are never absolutely binding.Īct utilitarians typically claim that their version is the only real version of utilitarianism and maintain that rule utilitarians are rule worshippers-and if they weren't, they would be act utilitarians. So act utilitarians often recognize that we may use 'rules-of-thumb' to guide our decisions most of the time, and need to step back and examine an individual action only when it appears that it might cause more harm than benefit.

The difference between the two begins to blur when act utilitarians realize that it's practically impossible to compute the consequences of each individual act-the time and energy consumed by this computational task would wipe out the very opportunity for action. Both are consequentialist doctrines, but they differ in this respect: act utilitarianism demands that we weigh the consequences of each individual act, while rule utilitarianism asks us to weigh the consequences of having everybody following a particular rule. The difference between act and rule utilitarianism is simple, at least on the surface.

Probably more than any other single philosopher in the last half century, Singer has changed us and our world, bringing the demands of the reduction of suffering to the fore and also providing very concrete ways in which we can more forward toward that goal. Singer's versino of utilitarianism places heavy burdens on all of us to forgo luxuries so taht the neediest can be cared for and to reduce-perhaps even eliminate-the killing of animals for food, clothing, and sport. In the last forty years, the philosopher who has been the most influential advocate of utilitarian thinking is the Austrtalian philosopher Peter Singer, Beginning with his early book Animal Liberation in 1974, Singer has forcefully advocated not only the reduction of human suffering but also the reduction of animal suffering. John Stuart Mill is the foremost representative of this position, and his work continues to exert considerable influence today, especially his Utilitarianism. What sets utilitarianism apart from other types of consequentialism is that it maintains that we must consider the consequences for everyone (at least all humans, perhaps all sentient beings), whereas other versions of consequentialism restrict the circle of consequences to smaller groups, such as our nation or our family or our fellow believers-or even, in the case of ethical egoism, to me alone. Utilitarianism is one of a group of theories that maintain that the rightness or wrongness of an actio n depends on the action's consequences.

Hedonic consequentialism